Aanyway, it was all good fun and lead to the sort of blogostorm that we haven’t seen in, ooh, months. It was just like the old days. So I thought I’d venture off into the trackless wilds, and visited NoTricksZone5, all-European winner of the “most hyperbolic headline of the affair” competition. NTZ believed everything LB had told them4a, and weren’t very amused when I commented Oh the poor dahling. LB is such a delicate wilting flower. Don’t you think someone who fades so easily ought to have kept out of the limelight? Or, in more vigorous terms, that he ought to stop being such a crybaby and Man Up? Their unamusement was somewhat dull, but it did provoke a postall about me, which was more interesting6. But third time is the charm: an ostensibly unpromising post about some German Meteorologists mumbling into their beer about the evils of the world7 included them saying These developments involve first of all something in the lines of a democratization of science: Everyone is allowed and should have a say in it… in our opinion (and that of others) led to very negative impacts on the quality standards of science which sounded to me like the aged German Met folk being sniffy about “Citizen Science”. Since that’s the kind of stuff NTZ and their ilk thrive on8 their backs were up9; skipping over some invective the conversation returns (at last!) to LB, and I respond by pointing out that he’s been “economical with the truth”10. “Graeme No.3” suggests that I had best rush over to the Bishop where he’s pointing out that it was the reviewer who made the mistake. Nothing much more happens at NTZ (oddly enough, not one of them are interested in discussing the second referee), so its on to stage 2: the Bish.

The Bishop (warning: shameless self-indulgence ahead)

Who wrotethe only concern in the reviewer report published to date seems to be with Bengtsson’s temerity in thinking that observations and models really ought to match up, and of course the concern that sceptics might be keen on the paper. The gullible folk at the blog were lapping it up, of course, so I felt obliged to throw in No. There’s a previous, fatal concern: “The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low”. Its curious that you managed to miss that. Perhaps you need to read it more carefully. Unfortunately for them, there’s really not much you can say to argue with this, so they’re down to denial and diversion. The most common response11 was something like “I can assess the overall quality of that review”, or “Review papers by definition aren’t ‘innovative'” – something that just doesn’t address the issue; which is the Bish’s error. Another attempt (we’re on page 2 now) was You changed the topic. The topic was error. There is no way that the judgement “overall innovation of the manuscript is very low” can be understood as a claim about an error. Please stick to the topic. At this point the conversation becomes rather hard to follow, because a number of my comments have been invisibly censored. Here’s one in reply to those last:

> Review papers by definition aren’t ‘innovative’

Says you. But you’re missing the point; the point is the falsity of our host’s text. Our host asserted that “the only concern in the reviewer report published to date seems to be with Bengtsson’s temerity..”, and yet the reviewer said “The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low”. You may, if you like, assert that the reviewer was wrong to raise the point of originaility – I’d disagree with you – but you may not gloss over the problem that the review *did* raise this point; and thus our host is in error.

> I don’t see why focusing on this point is somehow lying.

*Focussing* on that point is entirely permissible – albeit distinctly one-sided. I’m not complaining about that. I’m pointing out that our host is lying when he says that was the only concern raised (I think one could originally have forgiven him for an honest error committed in haste, but time has now passed and its clear he intends to hope his error gets buried rather than correcting it; that is now lying).

> Please stick to the topic.

Aka “Please do not under any circumstances think for yourself”. Will you, similarly, condemn “Leave Savonarola alone” type comments as off topic? Of course you won’t! They’re by people you regard as on your side, and so they are above criticism.

Seems rather off-topic too. Its also false, but that won’t stop you repeating it.

Some of the censorship is a bit incompetent; the fragment “”but time has now passed and its clear he intends to hope his error gets buried rather than correcting it; that is now lying” exists now only in being quoted by someone else; the original comment is invisibly deleted.

After a while, when its clear that the monekys aren’t doing very well, the organ grinder turns up with “I am not sure if I have ever come across anyone quite so disagreeable”. That’s an open goal (thanks NikfromNYC and ThomasFuller2, and indeed many others), for

> I am not sure if I have ever come across anyone quite so disagreeable.

> feels that my failure to mention a criticism made of it on grounds of “lack of originality” means that I have been lying.

No. You need to try reading what people say. I’m saying (sigh. I’ll say it again) that your statement “the only concern in the reviewer report published to date seems to be with Bengtsson’s temerity in thinking that…” is false.

There. Its really that simple. The falsity of your statement doesn’t depend on the contents of the Sekrit manuscript; it isn’t affected by whether the reviewer was right to say it or not; its simply a consequence of the reviewer having said

Now, I can see why you wouldn’t want to draw attention to that rather embarrassing fact. From your POV, sweeping it under the carpet is very much what you want; and I’d have understood, had you just ignored it. But asserting that it doesn’t exist is false.

> And that my absence from my desk on a Sunday means that I am running from facing the facts.

Not a very good try; see my comment of May 17, 2014 at 8:41 AM.

> I think he “has issues”. Serious issues. But he can explain himself on his own website, where only the fruitcakes go.

Well, I’ve had comments from NikfromNYC on my blog, so I can’t completely disagree with you about fruitcakes.

So, there you have it (or rather you don’t, any more, because it got vanished). Just one of the Bish’s people (I record my gratitude to Jonas N) stood up against censorship. But more than that, I was disappointed by their ability to think, to read, to argue. By their simple denial of what was in from of their eyes. By their total lack of skepticism about what they were being fed. NTZ isn’t any better, of course, but somehow I’d expected some kind of superior quality “skepticism” from the Bish; and all I got was std.denial.

3. This bit is genuinely murky: did LB show the review to the GWPF, who then showed it to the Times, who then printed only part? Did the GWPF only show part to the Times? Did LB show only part to the GWPF? Did LB leak it directly to the Times? Those who know (LB and the GWPF) aren’t about to enlighten anyone.

4. And other links far too numerous to mention.

4a. These “sup” things are great, I must over-use them more often. But they’re a pain when they get out of order. So: LB becoming a hero of the nutters is a bit weird, given stuff like Determination of a lower bound on Earth’s climate sensitivity which none of them would touch with a bargepole. Incidentally, the graph of downloads per month is amusing, no?

5. Motto: Not here to worship what is known, but to demonstrate our inability to spell.

6. To me, not you. It gets briefly exciting when they deny that LB received the emails that he said he received, but that was just too wacko to pursue.

9. Weeell, really, anything I say puts their backs up, they really are very sensitive creatures. “Gareth” does make a perfectly reasonable response, and in a better environment I’d have continued the conversation with him.

10. One of those useful phrases like “terminological inexactitude” (i.e., “lie”) that can be uttered in polite company without seeming too rude. As wiki notes, it is “popularly used as a euphemism for deceitful, whether by volunteering false information (i.e., lying) or by deliberately holding back relevant facts”.

11 Actually the most common response was an ad-hom of the intellectual level of Sorry Connolley but your not in your realm surrounded by sock-puppets any-more, but putting those aside.

Interesting to know that there are circumstances where Bishop Hill removes comments. I have asked to remove a comparison of my family name to a medical procedure, but to no avail. Well I guess if they were not hypocritical, they would not be climate “sceptics”. You really wonder how these people are able to look someone into the eye. Those conservatives with their superior family or patriotic values.

“But more than that, I was disappointed by their ability to think, to read, to argue. By their simple denial of what was in from of their eyes. By their total lack of skepticism about what they were being fed. NTZ isn’t any better, of course, but somehow I’d expected some kind of superior quality “skepticism” from the Bish; and all I got was std.denial.”

I don’t know if you saw any of this, but one of the interesting behaviors was that of a few:
a) Who were clearly dismissive of mainstream climate science
b) Exhibited reasoned caution about Salby’s story and even got beaten on by others for not instantly jumping in the clown car.
c) But seemed mostly worried that if it turned out badly (it did), the
“sceptic community” would look bad.

[Yes, I’ve seen that. “PS” seems somewhat to scholarly for the people I was talking about -W]

Comment deletion: of course, when doing a discourse analysis of blogs, it is often pretty hard to know when silent deletions have occurred. I think Montford was busy during the SalbyStorm, as I didn’t see any obvious signs of deletions.

Like many of the other denialvilles around the web, they can be fun places to visit – but I;d never want to live there.

At one time I spent more time at Goddard’s than I’d ever want to admit. What was incredibly precious is that ‘Goddard’ never sleeps. The crew they have manning the comments (masquerading as Stevie boy) would make contradictory statements within minutes of each other and be completely oblivious of what was being said in different comment threads all under Steve’s name.

These are where you ventured, William, but you apparently didn’t dare or feel the need to wander into the wilds of Curry Land.. after all, she was quick to tell the press that “it had the potential to do as much damage to climate science as the ‘climategate’ scandal, where the University of East Anglia was accused of manipulating data and attempting to suppress critics.”

On her own blog, after initially republishing LB’s statements and applauding him for speaking out, she got into meandering about whether advocacy is ok and complaining that she too has been smeared with the result that she’s “excluded from serious consideration for administrative positions at universities, offices in professional societies, consideration for awards from professional societies, a number of people won’t collaborate with me” etc. which, if true, is more plausibly related to her self-publicity starting with the train wreck of her RC comments trying to justify Montford’s Hockey Stick Illusion without checking any of her facts first.

Still, Climategate 2 as Fox has it surely requires a full examination by The Auditors. Where are the FOIA demands to the University of Reading for all of those dreadful emails to LB? And, indeed, all of LB’s correspondence with the GWPF…. the World Should Be Told but somehow the septics seem to have lost interest….

[About a year ago, a pile of my comments disappeared at Curry’s, so I gave up commenting. But I didn’t track the disappearance closely. I’ve been meaning to try again one day, but its not encouraging, the incoherence there. As to her whinging about her career: I can feel no sympathy, she has been ridiculously impolite and aggressive towards her “colleagues”, no wonder they don’t want to be associated with her. And anyway: she’s no great star: perhaps she’s just using this as a convenient excuse for career failure. As to “Climategate 2” – I thought they’d already used that? It was a bit of a damp squib, but surely the likes of Curry haven’t rubbed it out entirely? -W]

On comment deletion, I recently got snipped from BH (after many months) for commenting:

If I were a climate scientist, I would not want to be associated with an organisation like GWPF that has the misrepresentation of my work as its mission. If a colleague announces that he is going to work with GWPF, such an association is likely to be created. I would naturally distance myself from that colleague. Nothing strange there, except that Bengtsson didn’t see it coming.”

The Bishop removed that comment and said “Snip – trolling. Consider yourself on a final warning.”

Considering I had been snipped only once or twice in many months of posting there, a ‘final warning’ seemed odd. I replied:

“Why was it ‘trolling’? Because I suggested that GWPF has the misrepresentation of climate science as its mission? That is neither a novel idea nor in doubt to anyone outside the ‘sceptic’ community. And that probably is why Bengtsson’s colleagues objected to his new association. Despite your evident support for them, can you not see that GWPF is widely distrusted (or worse) and that scientists would not want in any way to be associated with it?”

That comment was removed and got me blocked. A few comments I have made since have also disappeared. However, although I ended up blocked, to Monty’s credit, I was tolerated for a long time – I was also careful not to be too rude (the temptation was strong). Clearly I hit a sensitive spot – Monty doesn’t wan’t his monkeys to be told that GWPF is not interested in science.

Looks like you have had your chips at BH. That’s what happened to me, and no comment of mine has been allowed to stand since. Not that I have bothered for a long time now. There’s always something better to do, like re-arrange stuff on my desk into pleasing shapes.

This is one paper. It indeed may not “not meet ERL’s requirement for papers to significantly advance knowledge of the field.” The concern is, as allows, if their is systemic bias. Is the bar for advancing the science the same? I am not qualified to say. However, if in the same sentence there is expressed a concern of “harm” by sceptics using it as a door, I question the bar. Obviously, the firestorm for not accepting the paper has also created a firestorm among sceptics so how is it reconciled that accepting or not accepting is relevant in any way to sceptics? I find the determination of “harm” by the reviewer to be rather short-sighted as well as irrelevant. It implies that less rigorous but less “harmful” papers are okay or acceptable. That flies in the face of what rigor should be about. The reviewer brought it up so it was obviously relevant to him. I’d rather they stick to factual inaccuracies than assessments of “harm.”

I believe everything innovative is learned on the playground of any primary school. Whether the piece by LB exceeds this threshold of innovation, I cannot say. But the bar is not particularly high when 5 year olds can reach it.

Tim Beatty, it looks as though you’ve failed to read the reviews of LB’s paper: it had blatant errors, used methods that were already published in the paper it cited, and having found a discrepancy in results between the global model and the part-of-the-globe measured data, suggested that this discrepancy was an unsolved mystery instead of explaining how the discrepancy arose. That suggestion would have been misused by the septic publicity machine, as the reviewer rightly noted.

Since it’s [almost?] unheard of to publish these confidential reviews without permission, perhaps the reviewer thought it was worth alerting LB to the potential misuse. However, if this sentence disqualifies this reviewer, then what of the second review which did not comment on septic misuse? And the fact that the journal’s editorial board reexamined and reaffirmed the decision that the paper needed correction and a new analysis of the data before publication.

Of course if you think that the Institute of Physics isn’t to be trusted, why not get the paper published elsewhere? Energy & Environment has septics on the board and would surely publish it. Then all those citizen scientists could review the errors in the paper.
And, given the allegations that LB received abuse, why not a FOIA request to his university to publish all those allegedly abusive emails. Why are the septics trying to hide the data?

dave s. I don’t claim anything about the paper as I would not be qualified to review it. Rather, I dound concern about misuse to be out of place. The paper, if wrong, should just have been marked up as wrong. There’s no political judgement required about who may or may not use it. That comment should have been flagged by the editorial review board as completely without merit to it’s publication. It slipped through though and it begs the question as to how. Systemic bias that such a statement is okay is one reason (i.e. it’s taken for granted that giving sceptics ammunition is to be avoided – that attitude is problematic). That deserves some attention to at least review where the bar is set. Great claims require great proof. Tiny claims often see the light of day with little proof. Great claims with tiny proof should always be rejected yet the bar for certain tiny claims should not be giant proof in one direction with little proof in the other. That is the realm of politics, not science.

See Dog Astrology issue raised in WIkipedia talk page with regard to The Hockey Stick Illusion. In addition, when Montford quoqtes/miksquoted Lindzen for support … it turns out that Lindzen had to retract the claim about Jon Overpeck, because he had no evidence either. Compare v3 versus v4 at ArXiv., i.e., look for Overpeck.

SO, not only was Monford’s claim that Lindzen confirmed Overpeck as quotee, Lindzen had to retract his false comment that Deming(2005) had named Overpeck, because he did not, and as yet, no real evidence has appeared, and of coruse it made no sense to anyone who knows the history of IPCC(1990) Fig.7.1(c), its caveats and its rapid disappreance in favor of real reconstructions.

Sorry, #22 done on teh run. Try:
SO, not only was Monford’s claimwrong that Lindzen confirmed Overpeck as quotee, Lindzen had to retract his false comment that Deming(2005) had named Overpeck, because he did not. As yet, no real evidence has appeared that Overpeck (or anyone else) actually wrote this or if they did, it was actually in context.
Of course, the whole story made no sense to anyone who knows the history of IPCC(1990) Fig.7.1(c), its caveats and its rapid disappreance in favor of real reconstructions.
It was long gone before IPCC(1995), and Deming’s story about a 1996 email only appeared in 2005, strangely at Fred Singer’s SEPP website 3 months before publicaiton @ JSE … odd. Of course, when Mcintyre used the quote, the post had multiple falsifications:
1) The Image actually was not exactly that from Fig 7.1(c), i.e., a false citation. I does math this one from 2001, by John Daly, who consulted for the Western Fuels Association (Powder River Coal).
2) It was falsely attributed to the SAR, IPCC(1995) … by coincidence necessary to make Deming’s story have any remote possibility Of course, it has no graph like that.

The evidence seems strong that McIntyre had copies of neither of those IPCC reports, had not read the caveats around Fig.7.1(c). In 2012, Tom Curits asked him where he got the image, but he could not recall … even though it became the centerpiece of the long attack on the hockeystick.

Mcintyre then spent a few years speculating, then insinuating, then assuming that Overpeck sent the email.

re Tim Beatty #20, the paper was just flagged up as both wrong and lacking any new analysis. Reviewers communicate directly with the authors to give advice on how to improve the paper: they gave that advice, but instead of taking it, Bergston et al. asked the journal to publish the paper uncorrected as a “Perspective” article. The journal’s editorial board reviewed the paper, and confirmed it had errors.

So, out of all that scrutiny only one review made the statement you’ve seized on. The journal’s considered view is that it’s been taken out of context. If you think that very reputable journal is in the wrong, why not cal for another journal to publish the paper? What are you trying to hide?

So have UK politicians monetized this credulity, the way US politicians have done? The Long Con assessed this by looking at the advertisements targeted at subscribers to the credulous ones, who sort themselves conveniently for that: “Subscriber lists to ideological organs are pure gold to the third-party interests who rent them as catchments for potential customers. Who better suits a marketing strategy than a group that voluntarily organizes itself according to their most passionately shared beliefs?”

“the way it looks is that 1) People (should we call them “marks”?) donate money to Morris’ super PAC; 2) he pays that money to Newsmax for “fundraising”; then 3) Newsmax turns around and pays the money back to Morris, for access to his list of donors. Perhaps Newsmax takes a cut, or perhaps the list is their cut, because these people can then become marks for all kinds of future scams.

… look at the FEC filing for Morris’ super PAC, most of the spending goes to two entities: Maelstrom Technology Solutions, for “credit card fees”—presumably they’re the ones processing donations to the super PAC, and they take a percentage on every donation—and Newsmax Media.”

[Thats a bit weird, isn’t it? I mean the headline. Because the text, apparently, is:

None of the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to implement the U.S. Global Change Research Program National Climate Assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report, the United Nation’s Agenda 21 sustainable development plan, or the May 2013 Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866.

I’d guess the Repubs mean by that language to forbid the Pentagon’s doing anything — taking any action, making any choice — that happens to be recommended by such sources.

No solar PV, no alternative fuels, no insulation, no conservation, no planning for sea level rise at the ports, just pour on the coal, keep the steam up and give’em hell.

[Well, its a bit of a puzzle, because “Implement the U.S. Global Change Research Program National Climate Assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report…” makes no sense. Certainly not for the IPCC report – its not a programme for action; it can’t be implemented. I assume the NatCliAss is much the same. It doesn’t seem very well thought out, but perhaps that’s not the point -W]

I meant to write, from Bengtsson’s reply to thre Times decscription of his views in that interview:

“I do not believe there is any systematic “cover up” of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics’ work is being “deliberately suppressed”, as The Times front page suggests. I am worried by a wider trend that science is gradually being influenced by political views. Policy decisions need to be based on solid fact.”

William, I agree with Hank’s interpretation. The proposal is so oddly constructed, even for politicians, that it in my opinion would allow them to complain whenever the DoD does anything about climate change, including those security assessments, since that would likely involve citing the IPCC reports or the National Climate Assessments.

Be careful what you wish for Marco, lest Congress transfer TSA ‘s ukase to a Thermal Safety Authority —

The Huffpo piece reports :
“Tom Ridge, who served as homeland security secretary under Bush, said that climate change is “a real serious problem,” one that “would bring destruction and economic damage” if we ignore it.”

“… Highlighting the resonantly forced ocean long-waves allows lifting the veil on many previously unexplained phenomena of both oceanic and climatic origin. Is that the tropical belt of the oceans produces long-waves, whose wavelength is several thousand kilometers. Trapped by the equator they are deflected at the approach of the continents to form off-equatorial waves that act as tuning slides …”

” Now, the giant energy companies are taking a page from Big Tobacco’s playbook. …. To boost their sales, outfits like Philip Morris International and British American Tobacco also brought their legal and financial clout to bear to block the implementation of anti-smoking regulations in such places. “They’re using litigation to threaten low- and middle-income countries,” Dr. Douglas Bettcher, head of the Tobacco Free Initiative of the World Health Organization (WHO), told the Times.

The fossil fuel companies — producers of oil, coal, and natural gas — are similarly expanding their operations in low- and middle-income countries where ensuring the growth of energy supplies is considered more critical than preventing climate catastrophe. “There is a clear long-run shift in energy growth from the OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the club of rich nations] to the non-OECD,” oil giant BP noted in its Energy Outlook report for 2014. “Virtually all (95%) of the projected growth [in energy consumption] is in the non-OECD,” it added, using the polite new term for what used to be called the Third World….”

Bengtsson is a sort of anti-hero type who gets thrown into the spotlight against his wishes. Sort of like being mugged by reality. Happens to most of us eventually. Even you, WC, and if you don’t believe that, just wait, it will come.

In our continuing effort to understand the rather complex world-view of VA-07 Republican nominee and economist Dave Brat, here’s an excerpt from a Gabriel/Perez-Pena New York Timesprofile of Brat and his fellow Randolph-Macon College faculty member and general election opponent, Jack Trammel:

—-quote—-
Several economists said in interviews that Mr. Brat often appeared not to be writing as an economist. “I did find him pretty confusing,” said Justin Wolfers, a professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan, and a fellow at the Brookings Institution. “This dude just really wants us all to go to church, and that appears to be his economic policy conclusion.”

“Responding to the groundbreaking report “Risky Business,” a bipartisan project that compiled the many ways global warming will harm the United States economy over the next cenutry, a CNBC staffer sent an e-mail to a website that she apparently thought was connected to economist and climate contrarian Alan Carlin. In the e-mail, which has been shared with Republic Report, the booker asked Carlin to respond to the report and write an op-ed on “global warming being a hoax.” See below:

Hi there. Given this new report on the cost of climate change, wanted to extend an invitation to Alan Carlin to write an op-ed for CNBC.com. Can be on the new report or just his general thoughts on global warming being a hoax. If he’s interested, please email me directly

The e-mail was sent to DeSmogBlog, the hard-hitting climate investigative blog, which has a profile on Carlin. To be clear, DeSmogBlog has no relation to Carlin other than reporting on his many misdeeds and his appearance on the Glenn Beck program.”

BBC journalists are being sent on courses to stop them inviting so many cranks onto programmes to air ‘marginal views’.

The BBC Trust on Thursday published a progress report into the corporation’s science coverage which was criticised in 2012 for giving too much air-time to critics who oppose non-contentious issues.

The report found that there was still an ‘over-rigid application of editorial guidelines on impartiality’ which sought to give the ‘other side’ of the argument, even if that viewpoint was widely dismissed.